This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

What's being said

When Justice Scalia claims that questions never come to the SCOTUS in any variant form other than a concrete case he fails to mention that it is by choice this is done this way and that the monetary court and attorney system the U.S, is fond of using since the beginning of time is that which is requiring of dirty money. To get an audience on front of the SCOTUS one must shell out big bucks. In a perfect society Legal Aid (not just in small matters but SCOTUS level cases) would not cost - IT WOULD BE PROVIDED. I think the whole thing wreaks of Bullshit.

Joe Buckstrap

Apr 22, 2014

On the contrary, Mr. Scalia, America has never been more in need of an Article V Convention.

Ravi Batra

Apr 20, 2014

There is rare beauty on our Supreme Court, as exemplified by Justices Ginsburg and Scalia, when despite disagreements they render to each other personal respect of the highest order.

The Article III branch of government is the one which works best. It is also the one that best honors Lincoln‘s promise of a government "of, by and for" the people.

Without the Court being respectful, the rule of law could not be a calling and nuances would be unwelcome.

Dated: 4/19/14/s/Ravi Batra

Scott Neuman

Apr 18, 2014

I‘d like to see the ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment from the Bill of Rights promulgated to Congress. I stand for this in the November 2014 election. ScottNeumanforCongress.com

Richard Fagin

Apr 18, 2014

"That amendment, she added, ‘means that women are people of equal stature before the law.‘"

No, Justice Ginsburg, the amendment read, "Equality before the law...", not equal rights or equal stature, but "equality." When the amendment appeared on the ballot in Massachusetts in the late 1970s, my immediate reaction was that "equality" would have been construed by courts to mean "equanimity of result", not equal application of the law to any particular set of facts. If a then 20 year old could make that judgment, it is inconceivable that a Justice of the Supreme Court, particularly given your political predisposition, could or would not make the same judgment.

Can it. The ERA died because enough Americans came to the same conclusion that I did, even when the amendment was given an unconstitutional extension to the ratification period.

Docile Jim Brady — Columbus OH 43209

Apr 18, 2014

“The failure of the push to add the equal rights amendment, Ginsburg noted, was an example of how difficult the amending process is. That amendment, she added, "means that women are people of equal stature before the law. I think we have achieved that through legislation but legislation can be repealed, altered.”

An easier fix would be to deport then shoot (or shoot then deport) those who REFUSE to give women equal stature before the law .For those who NEGLECT to give women equal stature before the law , deport ☺